Robin Williams, R.I.P.

I don't have any specific solutions. Except that it can start in the home. A change in how you raise your children, i guess. It would require a mindshift that needs to be taught early. We should stop telling kids "you can be whatever you want to be" in lieu of actual aspirations. When you ask kids this, you know, "What do you want to be when you grow up" they just make something up. Or they say something of which they know nothing about. We have a retarded way of implanting goals and aspirations in kids.

Honestly I like the sci-fi idea of analyzing a persons DNA and determining a persons pre-disposed potential and very early start them on that path. Let me be clear though I do not support forcing anything on anyone nor closing doors. The point is to gather whats likely to come naturally to a person and nurture that until that person figures out what it is they want in life. If they never figure that out, then at least they have a set of real skills to go on. Something they can be proud of.

What we do now is tell kids to imagine and think about what they want and at some later date they can achieve it. But kids should be doing not thinking. Trial and error is how most of us operate. Many people start too late in life and then they have no real skills to fall back on when their glorious plans fail (which they more often do).

Until the DNA analyzer I guess I would teach my future kids the skills I know and start them on a path in which I could conceivable help them later on if they need it. If they have their own goals and dreams that would be great. But my biggest fear is lack of direction. I guess my simple answer is parents need to be more involved? I guess its an unsatisfactory answer.

Another way: is large public projects geared towards space exploration. Something so large and pervasive in the public sphere that it doesn't matter what your job is. You would feel compelled and motivated to get up in the morning and clean those toilets cause every piece of the jigsaw matters in the public pursuit of putting men and woman on mars/alpha centauri. (An adaption of the WW2 model)

We were both wrong actually: It is neither mainly humanist countries or mainly developed countries that are suicidal, as the map from the other thread shows. The lack of purpose comes from suicidal people's religious conceptions of reality in my opinion. Hence I do think that a lot of those who suicide in the developed/free world do so because they tacitly embrace some of the main pillars of humanist belief, namely: atheism and materialism.

But there isn't any readily available information since the socialist notion of egalitarianism prevents humanist governments from allowing the study of such parameters, as they proscribe behavioral research that could measure the correlation between destructive actions and certain religious beliefs. Their reason for doing so is because it would expose humanism and Islam as degenerate and evil religious ideologies I think!

I don't think there is a single theory for all suicide phenomena. But I think mine likely explains high rates in wealthy and happy western countries. There are some that don't have high rates, so we should look to them to see what they do differently. Italy and greece seem pretty relaxed! Maybe fiscal responsibility comes at a blood price...

Then there are asian countries. You'd probably rate South Korea high on the capitalist list, but they are up there for suicide too. There is a cultural difference about suicide in the far east, right?

You think that these socialist policies implemented by humanists are a conspiracy? Think again.

Religion in France Wikipedia Page wrote:France has not collected religious or ethnic data in its censuses since the beginning of the Third Republic, but the country's predominant faith has been Roman Catholicism since the early Middle Ages.

On the "Robin Williams, R.I.P." thread? You think he committed suicide because of the parkinson disease and that he could have had a more humane death if consensual euthanasia had been available to him? There are a lot of people doing "death tourism" to Sweden for this purpose.

The problem I have with it is that there is a lot of potential for abuse. You could have corrupt dipshit doctors and nurses pulling the plug on people by drugging consent out of them and ugly things like that. But there are certainly many justifiable cases of terminal illnesses that are excruciating for the patient and for those around them which I feel should have this option.

Namely those who depend on life support to continue living. It's almost satanic the way some people are forced to survive artificially with unbearable and constant levels of pain and suffering out of some perverted notion of "respect for life". I think that people should be able to depart with dignity and that governments should not be able to impose that choice on people.

With the proper regulatory regime -and this is one of the most complex and challenging notions to properly implement if the goal is to protect people from abuse and to ensure an equitable process anchored in informed consent that properly restrains access to that measure to those who actually justifiably need it-, then I believe that it can be a noble and lawful policy to implement.

The key problem is the ease with which the whole thing can slip into abuse and misuse if it is not properly delimited in terms of ethical considerations and contextualisations for each given case. I may be the only adherent to my religion, which I regard as an outgrowth of Catholicism, but in my religion the fifth commandment is "You shall not murder".

On the "Robin Williams, R.I.P." thread? You think he committed suicide because of the parkinson disease and that he could have had a more humane death if consensual euthanasia had been available to him?

I don't know what was going through his mind. I don't know how bad the parkinsons news was. Sometimes it can come on slowly, others more quickly. I could understand it though. He was an active and animated guy. Imagine if the only thing in the world you loved doing was going to be taken away from you. Pretty depressing stuff.

Though if it was me I would have taken the parkinsons. It would suck of course, but I could live with it, for a time at least. I would take every extra moment I could get.

I was talking with a colleague about the tendency for society at large to denigrate Catholic dogma. It has been thrown out apparently because of the uneven battle between the traditionalists who reject the Third Vatican Council, and the liberation theologists. Kids are being raised in safe environments. Is this doing them a favour? I can say without sounding like a stereotype, that compared to today, I was educated in harsh public schools with truly messed up kids. It was often very unpleasant. On the upside, this gauntlet I had to run made me appreciate my close family all the more. I have heard young men entering adulthood saying in passing that their upbringing was woefully inadequate for preparing them for the onslaught of adulthood. In Catholic dogma, Christ never promised his followers a bed of roses. The film Revolver illustrated this perfectly. When people reach adulthood they sometimes become vengeful vindictive, horrible people when they fight for their materialistic comfort. Twisting their souls into bizarre charicatures of I know not what, blindly following their emotions and slaves to their gangrenous egos. These people truly are to be pitied. There should be more films and shows which accurately display these aspects of Canadian society today. But for rare examples such as "North of 60",all we get is bumfodder from CTV, CBC, & GLOBAL.

Americalex wrote:We were both wrong actually: It is neither mainly humanist countries or mainly developed countries that are suicidal, as the map from the other thread shows. The lack of purpose comes from suicidal people's religious conceptions of reality in my opinion. Hence I do think that a lot of those who suicide in the developed/free world do so because they tacitly embrace some of the main pillars of humanist belief, namely: atheism and materialism.

But there isn't any readily available information since the socialist notion of egalitarianism prevents humanist governments from allowing the study of such parameters, as they proscribe behavioral research that could measure the correlation between destructive actions and certain religious beliefs. Their reason for doing so is because it would expose humanism and Islam as degenerate and evil religious ideologies I think!

As I write this I am thinking about the great scene in : "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" where Big Daddy gives Brick the gears over his mendacity comment. Tennessee Williams really was a top shelf writer.

When I now think of Robin William and his long illness, his performance in "Secret Agent" all makes sense to me now.

On the "Robin Williams, R.I.P." thread? You think he committed suicide because of the parkinson disease and that he could have had a more humane death if consensual euthanasia had been available to him? There are a lot of people doing "death tourism" to Sweden for this purpose.

The problem I have with it is that there is a lot of potential for abuse. You could have corrupt dipshit doctors and nurses pulling the plug on people by drugging consent out of them and ugly things like that. But there are certainly many justifiable cases of terminal illnesses that are excruciating for the patient and for those around them which I feel should have this option.

Namely those who depend on life support to continue living. It's almost satanic the way some people are forced to survive artificially with unbearable and constant levels of pain and suffering out of some perverted notion of "respect for life". I think that people should be able to depart with dignity and that governments should not be able to impose that choice on people.

With the proper regulatory regime -and this is one of the most complex and challenging notions to properly implement if the goal is to protect people from abuse and to ensure an equitable process anchored in informed consent that properly restrains access to that measure to those who actually justifiably need it-, then I believe that it can be a noble and lawful policy to implement.

The key problem is the ease with which the whole thing can slip into abuse and misuse if it is not properly delimited in terms of ethical considerations and contextualisations for each given case. I may be the only adherent to my religion, which I regard as an outgrowth of Catholicism, but in my religion the fifth commandment is "You shall not murder".

Time to raise this thread from the dead so to speak. The cryogenics industry depends on friendly governments. Never mind the unknown science which will someday succeed in reviving the patients. I do not know if such an industry could exist in a reactionary theocratic country. I think some may be interested in filling in the blanks.

In Oregon, people are allowed to have medically assisted suicide.There are some limitations... If my memory serves, the Patient must be independently assessed as having 6 months or less to live by a minimum of 3 physicians qualified to make the the relevant assessment. The Pt must also undergo a psychological examination to assess not only their ability to make the decision, but to ensure they are aware of all the options available to them, and the repercussions thereof.

The Pharm industry preys heavily on people during their end-of-life phase. They have drugs designed which only millionaires can afford, which sometimes allow the upper-class to trade their fortunes for a few extra years of life. (We are talking drugs that stave off stage-4 cancer with an 800k per month price tag, for example. Once the person's fortune has been drained into big-pharma's pocket, they get cut off and die like the rest of us would have.)

Big pharma - probably a subject too broad to cover in one thread. Right to die versus the chance at picking up with life sometime down the road. What scares me is the pwr. being cut for an extended period of time due to unforseen circumstances. Do they just turn on the pwr. & carry on as though nothing happened?

There are numerous fairly advanced life forms on earth ( not in the plant kingdom) which routinely live for centuries. Such creatures as loggerhead turtles, antarctic codfish, whales(found with 1850's exploding harpoons in their flesh),etc. I suspect if and when it is discovered how to counteract the tissue toxicity caused by compounds added to vitrify froxen human flesh, then it might be possible to be revived as a chimera with altered Dna. Who knows what quality of life you might have? Hopefully by then Revenue Canada would be a distant nightmare!